Contemporary Art as the Political Whipping Boy
Chris Olifi, The Holy Virgin Mary, 1996 ______________________________________
Meghan Ameden Contemporary Art Criticism
Chris Olifi’s, The Holy Virgin Mary attracted me almost instantly. His use of warm colors and geometric looking shapes is calming and aesthetically pleasing. Without even knowing the title, my mind wandered to the iconic and beautiful paintings of saints with illuminated golden halos. Upon further observing the piece, some things were more clearly revealed. As I looked closer I began to see the myriad of materials that compromised it. Along with the use of acrylic and oil paints, the piece ignited the initial spark of offensiveness with a collage of pornography and the use of elephant dung. Unlike most people, this didn’t change my attraction to the piece. If anything it only attracted me more. What was with the female genitalia floating around a very obscure and geometric, Picasso-like depiction of an African woman? I wanted to know the symbolism behind the work, if there was any. Most of all, I wanted an answer as to why there were two piles of shit that sat bedazzled with the words “Virgin” and “Mary” beneath the canvas. This brings me back to my initial thoughts of who the African woman represented. From having seen a good amount of artwork in my studies, I have become familiar with how the Virgin Mary, more commonly referred to as the “Madonna,” is traditionally portrayed, in a frontal view, and always being the central focus of the picture. This confirmed for me that my initial interpretation of the piece was not far off. Olifi’s use of materials is enough to cause an uproar of protest against his work, but when you replace the iconic Caucasian Virgin Mary with an African woman, forcing people to imagine the possibility of a black Virgin Mary and surround her with female genitalia and butts and, to top it all off, hang the piece over two piles of elephant dung, you are definitely asking for a strong reaction, and not a good one. The use of gold and the “front-facing Virgin” pose that the African woman is taking, ties the work to religious icons, in this case being the Virgin Mary. The collage of female genitalia is intended to resemble Putti, or a figure in religious art depicted as a chubby male child, usually nude and sometimes winged. Olifi commented ever so innocently on the piece, “As an altar boy, I was confused by the idea of a holy Virgin Mary giving birth to a young boy. Now when I go to the National Gallery and see paintings of the Virgin Mary, I see how sexually charged they are. Mine is simply a hip hop version.” 1 Many people have since then commented on how Olifi has “transformed the Holy Virgin into 1 "Khan Academy." Khan Academy. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.
an exuberant [figure],” – and how he is, “making his own representation of the Virgin, defiant of tradition,” while also stating how the “parody-like African mouth and exaggerated facial features call attention to racial stereotypes.”2 In October 1999, the Brooklyn Museum of Art opened the Sensation exhibition where The Virgin Mary underwent its most intense debate among the public. Its apparent offensiveness to religious viewers and suggestive racism was interpreted by enough people to cause a radical reaction among angry art spectators. Mayor Rudy Giuliani even went so far as to threaten to close the city-funded art museum in which the work was displayed. Two months later, the work was vandalized by a spectator who smeared white paint over it, claiming it’s “blasphemy.” From the view point of the “politically conservative” spectator, it is clear as to why people would be offended by Olifi’s The Virgin Mary. The reasons being, as stated previously; defies the traditional symbolism behind such a religious figure, it suggests racism, through the stereotypical exaggerated facial features of the African woman, and it obviously offends by virtue of its pornographic imagery, and its sacred symbolism, with the use of elephant dung in the same light as the Virgin Mary. I can sympathize and understand why these elements could be offensive to some people. I am not religious, but I am also not naïve or one-sided when it comes to such beliefs, especially when it comes to contemporary art. I can see how symbolism by association can lead a person to view contemporary art in the worst possible ways. However, Olifi’s The Virgin Mary holds much more meaning than people allow themselves to see. Chris Olifi is a Roman Catholic and his parents are from Nigeria. He is Catholic and also black. Now it made sense to me as to why a black Madonna was used. But what about the elephant dung? It is said that Ofili's work refers to African folk painting. Elephants in Africa represent power, and the dung is meant to suggest fertility.3 In African art, the use of elephant dung is in no ways meant to be offensive. According to an article by Michael Kimmelman, A Madonna’s Many Meanings in the Art World, “Like a lot of art, his ''Holy Virgin Mary'' is
2 Kimmelman, Michael. "A Madonna's Many Meanings in the Art World." The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Oct. 1999. Web. 28 Oct. 2015. 3
"Chris Ofili: Can Art Still Shock Us?" BBC. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.
ultimately aimed at the art world. Savvy viewers are meant to feel superior to anyone who would find the dung and the pornography offensive by recognizing how Mr. Ofili means to turn what is shocking into something sweet. Both shock and whatever you might call its reverse reaction are crucial to the mechanics of the picture.” Having grown up in a progressively liberal world, I am not as easily offended by contemporary art. Contemporary artists have the constant battle of breaking down the barrier that has been built up by my generation, that of having been born in the early 90’s. A barrier in which blocks out any potential shock values, interpretations and reactions that art may intend to give. A generation that, for example, saw the legalization of gay marriage. One that openly practices the acceptance of others and their beliefs – but also one that - for the most part – has stopped asking why. When does acceptance become a problem, and how does it tie into art? An artist’s work is created with the intent to be interpreted, analyzed and discussed. With the idea of acceptance having been imprinted into the minds of my generation, art becomes less talked about and we don’t think any further into things than we have to. We don’t make connections, and again, don’t ask why. Acceptance is a beautiful thing, and is something that we should be proud of and continue to embrace. The views I have towards my generation as a whole is not meant to put us up on a pedestal. We are not perfect, we can be ignorant and lack a sense of political awareness. The idea that one day we will run the political world is scary to me. We tend to lack determination, we are lazy and uninvolved. We care more about updating our twitter feeds than what is going on in the world we live in. We are a generation of egotistical, self-involved children who are still living with our parents, attending community college and working a minimum wage job with no plan to move forward. We have become comfortable in our accepting little world – why would we want to stir up the pot by showing an ounce of passion towards something? Therefore, why would we allow a work of art offend us? I believe these points play a major role in the liberal acceptance of contemporary art. Maybe the reality of a liberal view point on art, and Chris Olifi’s The Virgin Mary, isn’t acceptance at all – but rather a lack of awareness and political involvement. The point in which I’m trying to bestow, is that whether you are politically conservative, or politically liberal, I believe that it takes a true passion or belief in something for it to offend, if presented in, or implied in an offensive manner. You are either going to be extremely passionate about something or you are going to look
past it completely. I don’t believe that contemporary art will ever please everyone who views it. Contemporary art is not intended to please everyone. Educator and author, Cesar A. Cruz once said that “Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.�